US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

Of course no court would touch binding arbitration. Keep stomping your feet, it was not binding arbitration. Nic is dead, and even its ghost (the one you won’t give up) will eventually be retired with another trip to the Ninth.

My prediction.....Silver dismisses, Parker appeals to the Ninth. Nothing else. We simply wait.

RR

Well Mr. Fantastic, if not binding (as is written in the ALPA merger policy that was followed),then explain to what kind of arbitration your group entered into.

The Nic is dead? Really? Lot of talk about it yesterday in a very live courtroom. Seems the company does not feel they can negotiate seniority at all, just accept what is given to them by the union, and they have already done that "accept" thing.

Your prediction is as good as anybody's.

Just to be different, I am going to predict Silver takes the case, imports the $4 million worth of litigation that already occured, and we will all get to watch Seeham brag to anyone within earshot that his new clients are the SWA mechanics, where he will argue a completely different line of BS than the one the suckers at usapa fell for.

 

[Bear96]

Of course no court would touch binding arbitration. Keep stomping your feet, [Nic] was not binding arbitration.

OK, I have been silent for a while, but you will have to explain that one.

What kind of special arbitration was it so that it was somehow not binding on the parties who agreed to be bound by it?

 

[nevergiveup]

WOW!!!!!!! It's been a long time since I posted but... I just couldn't let this slip by. Say it again and again and again and again.... Oh! And tell your buddies out east as well!

Unfortunately, one's career expectations change whenever there is a merger.

 

[fodase]

One more thing from the court I just thought about. Bob Siegal tol the judge that at a minimum the company wanted the 3 rd claim addressed, and that the company would not appeal if claims 1 and 2 were dismissed.

Claim 3:
1
2
3
4
5
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (28 U.S.C. § 2201)
FOR A DECLARATION THAT US AIRWAYS’ AGREEMENT TO A NON-
NICOLAU SENIORITY LIST WOULD NOT SUBJECT US AIRWAYS TO
LIABILITY


I'll leave you to think what might happen if it goes this way. My take was that Silver did not want to step on the 9th's toes, which claims 1 and 2 would definitely do. However claim 3 has nothing to do with the 9th, and if it survies that will give the company all the direction it needs.

 

[Phoenix]

 

[Reed Richards]

Well Mr. Fantastic, if not binding (as is written in the ALPA merger policy that was followed),then explain to what kind of arbitration your group entered into.

The Nic is dead? Really? Lot of talk about it yesterday in a very live courtroom. Seems the company does not feel they can negotiate seniority at all, just accept what is given to them by the union, and they have already done that "accept" thing.

Search me. Ask the previous bargaining agent..the one that sat on the award until 8M in dues walked out the door.

And you should not wet your pants every time you hear Nic mentioned in a legal proceeding. It’s had a real Flat Stanley trip all the way to SCOTUS....and has no relevance on this property.

I am glad you fully understand the company's intentions. Clue the rest of us in.

RR

 

[nic4us]

Search me. Ask the previous bargaining agent..the one that sat on the award until 8M in dues walked out the door.

And you should not wet your pants every time you hear Nic mentioned in a legal proceeding. It’s had a real Flat Stanley trip all the way to SCOTUS....and has no relevance on this property.

I am glad you fully understand the company's intentions. Clue the rest of us in.

RR

This is what I like about you RR. Everytime you post I learn something new. Flat Stanley? Had to look it up. Now if you said Romper stompers, or Tom Terrific and Captain Kangaroo, I would have known what the heck you were talking about.

Wet my pants? No way, then I would be Mr. Greenjeans.

I have no idea what the company is planning. As I am not a paranoid schizophrenic, I will just take their word and assume they are not lying, and wish to see an end to the seniority dispute.

 

[CactusPilot1]

Search me. Ask the previous bargaining agent..the one that sat on the award until 8M in dues walked out the door.

And you should not wet your pants every time you hear Nic mentioned in a legal proceeding. It’s had a real Flat Stanley trip all the way to SCOTUS....and has no relevance on this property.

I am glad you fully understand the company's intentions. Clue the rest of us in.

RR

I'll tell you what has no relevance on this property, Richards, it's that union and it's attorney that we laughed out of court yesterday.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Here is a question for you. Do you agree with Seeham when he told judge Silver that the company is litigating in bad faith as a means to cause delay?

Nic4

Good question. Company legal is of course paid to be biased and present the company's preferred legal position. Nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the company's preferred legal outcome diverges from established law. As an example the company decided they did not want to pay the contracted pay rates when the LOA 93 pay modification expired. The company took the legal position as their primary defense that the status quo provisions of the RLA prevented them from changing the pay rates after 12/31/2009. The RLA written law backed up by several circuit court decisions has clearly established that previously negotiated contract provisions can take effect during the status quo period. The company was crushed and taken to school on this point in the LOA 93 arbitration.

The company wants the Nic to remain in play to use it as leverage against the cost of contract improvements for all USAirways pilots. Established labor law to avoid providing such leverage directs Federal courts as a default position not to interfere in union/management contract negotiations with almost no exceptions. There is little chance Silver will attempt to go around the 9th circuit and interfere in our contract negotiations. Any competent attorney would have to know the DJ is doomed.

To answer your question it is impossible to say for sure whether the company is intentionally litigating in bad faith or is simply horribly misinformed.

underpants

 

[Metroyet]

Nic4

Good question. Company legal is of course paid to be biased and present the company's preferred legal position. Nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the company's preferred legal outcome diverges from established law. As an example the company decided they did not want to pay the contracted pay rates when the LOA 93 pay modification expired. The company took the legal position as their primary defense that the status quo provisions of the RLA prevented them from changing the pay rates after 12/31/2009. The RLA written law backed up by several circuit court decisions has clearly established that previously negotiated contract provisions can take effect during the status quo period. The company was crushed and taken to school on this point in the LOA 93 arbitration.


underpants

How do you explain the fact that the pilots...YOUR pilots that negotiated LOA93 are on record with Kasher as emphatically denying any snap back provision was EVER negotiated?

The only thing ever "crushed" was the average East pilots hold on reality. You guys continually amaze me with your unparalleled ability to create your own world.

 

[nic4us]

Nic4

Good question. Company legal is of course paid to be biased and present the company's preferred legal position. Nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the company's preferred legal outcome diverges from established law. As an example the company decided they did not want to pay the contracted pay rates when the LOA 93 pay modification expired. The company took the legal position as their primary defense that the status quo provisions of the RLA prevented them from changing the pay rates after 12/31/2009. The RLA written law backed up by several circuit court decisions has clearly established that previously negotiated contract provisions can take effect during the status quo period. The company was crushed and taken to school on this point in the LOA 93 arbitration.

The company wants the Nic to remain in play to use it as leverage against the cost of contract improvements for all USAirways pilots. Established labor law to avoid providing such leverage directs Federal courts as a default position not to interfere in union/management contract negotiations with almost no exceptions. There is little chance Silver will attempt to go around the 9th circuit and interfere in our contract negotiations. Any competent attorney would have to know the DJ is doomed.

To answer your question it is impossible to say for sure whether the company is intentionally litigating in bad faith or is simply horribly misinformed.

underpants

I respect the honest answere, but feel you have a couple of issues wrong.

First, the 9th ruled on Addington vs usapa, Not vs. USAirways. While the brightline test for when a DFR is ripe might be ratification, the same does not necessarily apply to the company's liability. That was Silver's biggest issue, she even called the company "Johnny come lately", when addressing their getting themselves out of Addington, but want back in now, after the 9th ruled. The issue is Silver seemed to feel that the 9th would have made a different determination of ripeness had the company been on the hook with usapa.

Second, the company has more leverage toward a cheap contract using DOH than it would with the Nic. Just ask Lee.."we can offer a cost neutral contract..Seeham.

We will have to wait for the transcripts, but I heard she used the exact words to Siegel that "the West pilots have been harmed". Does not sound like a judge who wants to sweep things under the rug to me.

The LOA93 grievence, I am not even going to go there, other than tho say, the company put out way more arguements than just they were in status quo.

 

[Phoenix]

..I heard she used the exact words to Siegel that "the West pilots have been harmed". ...

I heard that UnbiassedFacts.org is reporting she said, "Whinny the Pooh has been harmed." Ironically neither of the two supposed statements have any relevance to the DJ request before her so both dubious reports are suspect.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

it was not binding arbitration.

Except for the "binding" part and the "arbitration" part. Live up to your promises, and then maybe you can start expecting others to do the same.

 

[trevrep]

Company's intentions.....led Clearyhole and posses lead you guys down the path to negotiate a piece of crap contract with the DOH you wet yourself over day after day....then lose the DFR II lawsuit....change SEC 22 to NIC....that gives him a nice long and cheap arse contract.....sends you guys out to pasture...with no money and sticking many of them in the right seat like they are now...but with pocket change and a SS check to live on..............too late to do anything about and too broke and out of time....he'll get his change of command clause tossed in the trash if you agree to trade that for DOH....sorry, had a couple pain pills tonight cause of oral surgery...but I think you get the idea........East guys are going to get screwed the worst in the long run......generally the West guys have more time to try to make it up down the road after you're all long gone and the next merger takes place...no C of C language..cheap pilots with crapola benefits......did I miss anything?

it's truly a sad thing we're all getting screwed in this except management...they are working all of the pilots like Russian immigrants and we can't even see it.......what a joke. Seeham, he's doing fine...just keep dragging it on...he's paid by the hour anyway and you guys will pay him till.......he loses DFR II and you're stuck with the NIC in the end.

That's how I see it going....your mileage may vary.....

Search me. Ask the previous bargaining agent..the one that sat on the award until 8M in dues walked out the door.

And you should not wet your pants every time you hear Nic mentioned in a legal proceeding. It’s had a real Flat Stanley trip all the way to SCOTUS....and has no relevance on this property.

I am glad you fully understand the company's intentions. Clue the rest of us in.

RR

 

[trevrep]

The TA plainly states that it is amendable by the company and the CBA. A contract with the nic is not ratifiable. It has nothing to do with collusion, stealing jobs or trying to screw anyone on the West. We're just not going to ratify a contract that puts over a thousand pilots, who are mostly younger than us, senior to us. That has nothing to do with reneging or not honoring our word. It's simply our right to vote not to ratify a contract that we feel harms our career. Therefore if the company really wants a contract, which I personally don't think they do, then they need to amend the TA and bargain in good faith with the democratically elected CBA.

Here's a news flash for you.....the company says get rid of the change of control language and we'll give you date of hire and a small raise AND crew meals? Put it out for a vote, and democratically it passes. We have a ratified new contract.

DFR II.....could be lost in the legal system forcing the company to only change one thing in the new contract...sec 22, it must be nic. Meanwhile, the company got you to sign off on crapola contract and you're still stuck with the NIC.

Think it couldn't happen? So not only could you get stuck with the NIC, but a crap contract too......with no C of C language because you gave that up for DOH.

Ouch!